It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flight 93 Crash Site Does Not Look Unique , After Looking At This .

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
"Where's the plane ?"

We've all seen this question asked hundreds , if not thousands of times , in discussions about flight 93 .

I was browsing around today , looking for nothing in particular , when I ran across a little gem that I thought was worthy to share with everyone here . Before I got back to ATS though , I further found that a former member had posted it a few years back and the thread ran for 20 pages before giving up the ghost . So before any of you decide to go postal on me for not posting in that thread , let me just say that the last activity on that thread was back in '08 , and in addition , the member was apparently banned in '08 also .

So , I felt I could take the liberty to post a new thread with this information , as I had never seen this info , and I'm sure there are others here who haven't seen it either . I did not read all 20 pages of the thread , but I did a fair perusal of several pages and found that alot of members on that thread haven't been active in quite some time . There were also those who are still current active members .

Anyway , I've never been an active poster concerning flight 93 , because I've never felt I had anything to contribute to that discussion , so I've remained silent on that aspect of 9/11 .

I would appreciate it if this can be discussed without the insults and personal attacks that can be witnessed in the other thread . All I am doing is presenting this for discussion , I don't need anyone telling me how stupid I am or accusing me of being a government shill .

On December 7,1987 , Pacific Southwest Airlines Flight 1771 took off from Los Angeles at 4:43 pm , with 43 people aboard , headed to San Francisco . David Burke was on board . He had been fired from PSA earlier in the day , for stealing $69.00 from an employee fund . Using his employee identification , he was allowed to board the flight without being subject to regular security measures . In so doing , he was able to carry a 44 magnum handgun onto the flight .

At 22,000 feet , he shot and killed his former boss , who was also on the commute home . He then went to the cockpit and shot the pilot and co-pilot . He took control of the plane and in a vertical dive of 650 mph , he shot himself .

Some reports state the plane began to break up , while other reports allege the bulk of the plane was still intact when it plowed into the ground .

Investigators at the scene , had the following to say about the crash site :


" The thought never occurred to me that it was actually bits and pieces of a large aircraft , a commercial aircraft ... there was nothing that had any shape to it that was recognizable ... small pieces , in most cases , no larger than a man's hand ..."

and ...

"... we found personal belongings , drivers' licenses , credit cards , pictures of family members ... things were blowing as far as 7-8 miles away ..."


They also found the PSA employee I.D. card of Burke , as well .

My point being , the crash scene looks very similar to the crash scene of flight 93 , and , personal effects were found at both sites . Looking at the similarities between the two sites , I am no longer as puzzled by the appearance of the flight 93 site .

I would like to get your thoughts on this as well . And yes , I am sure there will still be those who adamantly insist that I am one of Jerry's Kids and just fell off the short bus . I don't have the patience for any more of that crap , consider this your only warning .

Take a look , and discuss :

www.youtube.com...

Maybe someone can be kind enough to embed the vid , as I am computer-challenged .

The other thread can be found here :

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 22-1-2011 by okbmd because: computer dummy




posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Your point is well taken but never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

It won’t change the CTers minds.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


You could equally say " where's the plane " about this crash site but personal id survived, which truthers routinely scoff at.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Now im not saying your wrong or right. but think about it. the government is not stupid. if this David guy did what was said and the plane crash site is authentic then that would give the feds a pretty good scene to recreate. not saying your wrong about flight 93 but if it was staged the crash of 1771 would be the perfect cannidate to fit the profile of the crash of flight 93. what do you think? sounds pretty good to me
edit on 01/09/2011 by pthd840 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I've done similar research myself through the years because I questioned the flight 93 story as well. What I found was similar crash sites and alot of similar stories. I'll see if I can dig some up from years ago if I get a chance.

I was actually trying to find info about the Pentagon crash site if I remember correctly, about the lack of larger debris. I was amazed at the fact that these huge seemingly strong jetliners could reduce to near unidentifiable pieces. I always thought that there would be a huge wing, and the fuselage would be in two big pieces a la "Lost"

The only part of the 9/11 conspiracy that I actually give any credence to is the flight 93 story. I thought on that horrible tuesday morning that the plane was shot down, and even through all the research I have done, I still think that in the back of my mind. "Let's Roll" is a great personal story about heroism and I cant discount that either. I think the truth lies a bit in between. But as far as the other 9/11 conspiracies through the years, I cant subscribe to a single one of them, and at times have tried to.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd

My point being , the crash scene looks very similar to the crash scene of flight 93 , and , personal effects were found at both sites . Looking at the similarities between the two sites , I am no longer as puzzled by the appearance of the flight 93 site .

I would like to get your thoughts on this as well .

1st, why didn't that crash leave any wing or tail marks?

2nd, that plane was about 60% of the size of Flight 93, yet there looks to be hundreds of more pieces of debris at that site than at Shanksville and those pieces look larger on average even though that plane struck harder ground going almost a 100 mph faster! How could that be???

3rd, why would you think we wouldn't think personal effects would be found if a 757 did crash in that field? I don't get that comparison.

.
edit on 22-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I don't think finding personal effects are a concern either. Perhaps they are more likely available than usual if there was a breakup of the 'plane before it hit the ground, and in any event if there was no fire.



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


So tell us why do we see any aircraft debris here?



Or here - a number of aircraft accidents which have left little debris

www.google.com...://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/docs/592.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7. net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html&usg=__R3wBjW44cLx9OqxIYkdCEJzHB_M=&h=287&w=400&sz=39&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=CZj3Q9Lj lMG5-M:&tbnh=89&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvalujet%2Bcrash%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=6lc7TaX1Ic2ugQfQ4_D9Bg



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


www.google.com...://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/docs/592.jpg&imgrefurl=http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/ analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html&usg=__R3wBjW44cLx9OqxIYkdCEJzHB_M=&h=287&w=400&sz=39&hl=en&start=2&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=CZj3Q9LjlMG5-M:&tbnh= 89&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvalujet%2Bcrash%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=6lc7TaX1Ic2ugQfQ4_D9Bg



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


And your point is as well taken sk . That , in itself , is where the real conspiracy lies , in my opinion .

I'm no expert on 9/11 , but I am pretty well versed , as are the majority of those who post in 9/11 threads . It's just that we are split and one side will never agree with the other side .

It's a masterful plan , very well constructed . Divide and conquer has always proven to be a stroke of tactical genius . That's the real 9/11 conspiracy . You have the A-team believing x+y=z because this doesn't liken to 1+2=3 . Then there is the B-team attempting show that the two equations are totally irrelevant of each other , as they are two seperate forms of communication through calculation .

The only thing that links the two , is that they are both equations .

For those who are fuddled by what I just said , You can't compare Crash site A with Crash site B unless both planes crashed under near-identical paths of gravity and propulsion . I'm not certain of what the degree of impact was for flight 93 , someone will post it .

What I do know is that this information says that this plane was about 10 degrees from vertical , if I recall .

Both are very similar crashes , under very similar circumstances , with very similar crash sites .

No one can deny that this is indeed a logical comparison . As I said in the OP , I stumbled upon a still-image of this crash site while browsing .

Guess what ? I thought I was looking at the 93 crash site , until I opened the link and looked at the material . That's what led me to the ATS thread .



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 



You could equally say " where's the plane " about this crash site ...


Which is exactly what I am saying .



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pthd840
 


Sounds like a pretty good conspiracy theory to me .


I must say , it sounds as good or better than a lot of the theories I've seen .



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 


1) Could have broken up , as was stated , or , it slammed into the ground at 650 miles per hour . What does the crash site suppose to look like after a plane slams into the ground at that speed ?

2) According to the video , others were also perplexed at all of the paper goods that are seen in the vid . Someone commented on this in the vid . As for actual airplane material , I didn't see that much , myself .

3) I've read scores of posts where the poster found it incredulous that personal effects of the hijackers was found at the Flight 93 crash site , so my point is , personal effects of passengers as well as the perp was recovered at this site also , suggesting that it is not as uncommon as some would have you to believe .


edit on 22-1-2011 by okbmd because: eta



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
i cant get my head round it no matter what we will never find out. the way i see it in my mind is this.
The Shuttle Columbia Disaster was going 17,500 miles per hour when it exploded re-entering the atmospher and burning up this is the part that gets me the Debris the largest part of it recoved was then nose cone that hit the ground faster then any plane and it was still intacked more or less and a plane hits the ground going half the speed and theres nothing bigger then a foot??? its iver the planes just arnt safe in a crash and putting are lives at risk just for money or there made out of wood we will never no lol

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by ATH911
 


1) ...or , it slammed into the ground at 650 miles per hour .

Why wouldn't that leave wing/tail marks? Would have left DEEPER marks!


What does the crash site suppose to look like after a plane slams into the ground at that speed ?

The title of your thread: "Flight 93 Crash Site Does Not Look Unique , After Looking At This"


2) According to the video , others were also perplexed at all of the paper goods that are seen in the vid . Someone commented on this in the vid . As for actual airplane material , I didn't see that much , myself .

I don't know if you're blind, or in denial (or both) but when you look at the 1771 aerial video footage, you can't miss all the hundreds and hundreds of debris scattered all over the place and also notice that the pieces are, on average, 2-3x larger than the alleged Flight 93 debris because when you look at the Shanksville aerial footage, you can hardly see debris. You can only really see the limited Shanks debris from photos taken from the ground.

Recap, there is CLEARLY lots more debris from the 1771 crash even though that plane is about 60% the size of Flight 93. So where's the similarity between those two?


3) I've read scores of posts where the poster found it incredulous that personal effects of the hijackers was found at the Flight 93 crash site , so my point is , personal effects of passengers as well as the perp was recovered at this site also , suggesting that it is not as uncommon as some would have you to believe .

I've never heard a truther suggest personal effects wouldn't have survive if a commercial airliner crashed there, so this is a moot comparison.
edit on 22-1-2011 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ATH911
 



1) ...or , it slammed into the ground at 650 miles per hour .

Why wouldn't that leave wing/tail marks? Would have left DEEPER marks!


You really don't know how things work, do you?

There are some excellent videos on the internet of objects in motion filmed at very high frame rates so as to slow the motion down. They show what happens when something hits something else.

But before you get that far, maybe some very basic instruction on how humans create complex objects.

Put those two concepts together and you may just get an answer to your question!



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a good detective sees it as thus:
the first pictures from a news crew on the scene showed no debris and a small hole 10 feet by 15 or 20 feet....then the later pics had changed....wake up and be aware that our best evidence is what the media hangs themselves with.
now the pentagon.....SAME THING....my brothers......from the reporters mouth.....what you say? i can't wait



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GBP/JPY
 



the first pictures from a news crew on the scene showed no debris and a small hole 10 feet by 15 or 20 feet...


Well, I was watching the news reports that day also, and thats not how I saw it. The debris and wreckage was visible and discernible and the impact crater was much larger that 10 or 15 feet.

So much for your "good detective".



posted on Jan, 22 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   


The Shuttle Columbia Disaster was going 17,500 miles per hour when it exploded re-entering the atmospher and burning up this is the part that gets me the Debris the largest part of it recoved was then nose cone that hit the ground faster then any plane and it was still intacked more or less and a plane hits the ground going half the speed and theres nothing bigger then a foot???


1.The cone wasn't traveling very fast when it hit the ground.

2.The cone didn't have hundreds of tons pushing it from behind as it hit the ground.



posted on Jan, 23 2011 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by okbmd
reply to post by Alfie1
 



You could equally say " where's the plane " about this crash site ...


Which is exactly what I am saying .


I know, I am agreeing with you.







 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join